<p>I need some advice in pursuing a second degree in engineering.</p>
<p>I graduated from the University of California, Irvine with a BA in Economics a few years back. Since graduation, I have been helping my parents run their restaurant with the idea that Ill eventually take over full time for them. However, I dont enjoy the work at all. The money is good but I cant see myself 10 or 20 years from now running the restaurant and being happy about it.</p>
<p>Ive always wished I majored in Engineering and I am seriously considering going back to school to pursue that dream. From what Ive read on these forums, I dont think its viable for me to apply to a graduate program and I would be better off pursuing a second bachelors degree in engineering.</p>
<p>My plan right now is to take the required classes at a Community College and transfer out. I would like to attend another UC but 2nd degree students are low on their priority list and the recent budget cuts make it even harder to get in. I would like to go to the best school possible and I think my best option would be either private or out of state. Can anyone recommend a good engineering school that regularly accepts students for a second degree?
Also, if anyone has been in the same situation, I would appreciate any advice or insights into your experience with going back to school for the 2nd time. I'm 28 years old and if I'm going to do this, I need to do it now!</p>
<p>Stats:
Overall GPA: 2.7
Major GPA: 3.1
Degree: BA Economics</p>
<p>For someone who wants an engineering career the nice thing about the degree is that it’s the more so the degree that matters and not so much where you got it. Yeah, alum and all that play into it, but the effort you put into it will equal the return much more than with other degrees. Thus, attending a state school like Fullerton will not give you a “lesser” education by any means. If you can get into a CSU I would suggest that, and if you don’t feel pressured than try to transfer. With your gpa I would try to convince admissions to let you in on a probationary period for two reasons; 1) the gpa ain’t that great and this will give you a leg up on getting a seat, 2) it shows that you are practical and want to feel out the program as well as the degree before actually gunning for it.</p>
<p>I personally know some people who did what you are looking at doing and are quite successful. Though the times were different when they did it, I wish you the best of luck.</p>
<p>I disagree. It’s a myth on here that all engineering schools provide the same level of education and the same competency in the field at graduation. About 6 months ago, someone posted a comparison of different syllabi from the same mechanical engineering class at different colleges and showed the difference. </p>
<p>Even if you refuse to believe that, just think about it practically: at an aggregate level, a school with a 2200 SAT/3.9 UWGPA average should have a more capable student body than a school with a 1600 SAT/3.3 UWGPA average (note that I’m talking about an aggregate level, and not on an individual student level). So if these two groups of students received the same rigorous level of education, wouldn’t the students at the first school find the education to be relatively easier and the students at the second school find it relatively difficult? Then why do even MIT students find engineering to be difficult? MIT professors don’t make the classes difficult for the sake of making them difficult; they cover more complex material in a more rigorous fashion. </p>
<p>It’s also a myth that you make the same salary and have the same job opportunities regardless of the school attended. Students from Top 10 programs get more offers on average, have a higher salary (controlling for location), have more non-engineering career opportunities, and are pursued by more well known companies than students at second or third tier schools. It just makes sense that if you are a highly sought after employers, that you’d want the top employees. And the top employees disproportionately come from the top universities. </p>
<p>With that said, while there is a drop from first tier to second, and second to third tier, that drop is not massive like you would see in business or law, for example. Even coming out of a third tier school, there are plenty of job opportunities and you can still earn a respectable salary. In addition, since engineers actually “make stuff” (rather than work in a field where performance is subjective), there’s more of an opportunity to “prove yourself” in engineering than in other areas (such as business, which bases a larger percentage of performance on perception). </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have you considered going back to UC Irvine? Schools are often more lenient when their own students reapply for admission.</p>
<p>You get out what you put in, and if you need a competitive student body to make you put in more than by all means make sure you go to a top school.</p>
<p>Going back to UC Irvine was actually my first thought but even though UC Irvine and a few other UC’s accept students for second degrees. The reality is that those occasions are rare and require the approval of the dean. I will try to apply when the time comes but I’m looking for a backup plan.</p>
<p>CSU’s were suppose to be my backup plan, like what Japher recommended, but with budget cuts and applications up 25% in 2009 many CSU’s have also stopped accepting students for second degrees.</p>
<p>If I was able to get into a CSU, are they considered third tier schools aside from Cal Poly SLO and Pomona?</p>
<p>Fall 2010 Admission Cycle
4. No campus may admit any student from the lower priority categories:
a. No special admits
b. No lower transfer applicants
c. Only fully eligible upper division transfer students
d. No undeclared postbaccalaureate students e. No second baccalaureate degree applicants</p>
<p>Out of state is looking like my best option right now unless I want to pay $35,000 at a private school =(</p>
<p>believe it or not i am in the same situation as you are. i attended UCSB and started out as an electrical engineer but then i changed to a political science major. i too am hoping to go back to finish my engineering degree. </p>
<p>you have probably researched this information for yourself, but here is a link that specifies each UC’s policy regarding a second bachelors degree: </p>
<p>as you said yourself, i think the best approach is to take all the pre-reqs possible at your community college and then hope to transfer to a UC. there is also a program at boston university that looks interesting if traveling out of state is a possibility for you. the program is called “LEAP”. its an accelerated engineering program for people who got a BA and aspire to get a masters in engineering. here is the link:</p>
<p>Graduating from a Top-10 engineering program ONLY MATTERS for your INITIAL job out of college.</p>
<p>If you take two engineers, with the SAME years of work experience (10+)…they will be judged MOSTLY on the quality of their work experience. Where you obtained your degree from MATTERS LESS as the years of experience goes up.</p>
<p>Not all the time. Too many variables involved: latest technology trends during that timespan, successful/unsuccessful projects (whether you lead them or not), certifications earned, etc.</p>
<p>Look at it like the NFL. The best players are not all first-rounders. It is a mix of 1st, 2nd ans 3rd round players. The first rounders got paid more when they started off but may not get paid as the 2nd or 3rd rounder after so many years of proving themselves.</p>
<p>The NFL is very different because every player’s performance is well known, televised, individually recorded via stats, and there are only a limited number of teams of roughly equivalent stature.</p>
<p>In the real world, it doesn’t work like that. If you graduate from, say, UIUC, you’ll have a shot at a major firm, like Exxon (if you’re a Chemical Engineer). If you graduate from some much lower ranked school, you won’t. Let’s say you leave your first job and are looking for a second job - having Exxon on your resume will give you a massive bonus over someone with small no-name company. Also, even finding out there’s a job will be more difficult from a no-name since headhunters focus on big firms, and many of the larger companies target their industry leading rivals.</p>
<p>Also, it will affect your salary level. Salaries aren’t set based on performance the vast majority of the tim. With the exception of entry level positions, they’re usually set at a percentage raise over your current salary. So someone that starts at $55,000 from a low tier school and received a 5% raise in 3 years is at $57,750. Someone that starts at $70,000 from a top tier school and receives a 5% raise is at $73,500. When companies hire externally for experienced positions, they almost always ask for a salary history. If their position has a salary range of $70,000 - $90,000, and you came from a position that paid $57,750, you’ll be offered $70,000 (and probably less as many companies will not raise more than $10,000). On the other hand, someone from a salary of $73,500 would be offered $80,000 or more. </p>
<p>After about 15 - 20 years, that stuff goes away, though. If you’re still in technical engineering, everyone will be at about the same salary level. However, if you want to leave technical work (and the majority of engineers do), success in the business world is much more dependent on pedigree than engineering.</p>
<p>Is your college your sole determining factor of salary? No. If you come into an industry and are one of those Top 1% of performers, no one will care where you went to school. But, for an “average” to “above average” engineer (which most people are), it will play a major role by setting the starting salary and the rate of raise. Everyone will end up at the same rate in the end, but the graduates from top schools get to that rate faster. Imagine a curve: one starts at $70,000 and hits $110,000 in 10 years then levels off. The other starts at $50,000 and hits $110,000 in 20 years then levels off. Now integrate those curves to get total earnings over 40 years.</p>
<p>I am going to throw a little economics in here. It’s called supply and demand. A Top-10 school graduate of computer science may specialize in compiler design. A state-school CS grad could be into database systems.</p>
<p>Guess who has more jobs available to him/her?</p>
<p>You may want to do a search on “Oracle DBA” or “Data Architect” or Data Warehousing and Washington DC area. That’s $90-$120k for 5 to 10 years experience…and let’s not add in security clearances.</p>
<p>There are DBA’s, Unix/Solaris experts and Java nerds getting $120K with ASSOCIATES degrees down here. As for entering business?..those folks will just become independent, cut out the “pimp” (big corporations) and bill the Feds at $100-$115/hour.</p>
<p>That’s just with folks with degrees from such “top flight schools” as Univ of Maryland, Univ of Virginia, Univ of Delaware and that USNews highly ranked institution of higher-learning of North Carolina State (sarcasm).</p>
<p>I don’t see the connection in this case. You’re saying that if two people major in different fields at different schools, one might have more job opportunities than the other despite school ranking? Of course, but that outcome is caused by the different degrees, not the different schools.</p>
<p>What I’m saying is that two people, majoring in the same thing from two different schools, ceteris paribus, will have different salaries and different rates of increase in salary over their 20 years that is directly caused by the prestige of the school attended.</p>
<p>I am disagreeing with the notion that prestige of the school matter will result with have different salaries and different rates of increase in salary over their 20 years, when just school and major ONLY are taken into consideration.</p>
<p>One has to factor in the chosen “specialties”, the demand of those chosen specialties and other minor factors like:</p>
<ul>
<li>when/where that engineer changes employers</li>
<li>recruiters and their chase for finders fees when giving increased salary to new employees</li>
<li>industry “certifications” that also carry more weight than some school prestige</li>
</ul>
<p>I think you are looking at this as someone is going to stay at employers 5, 10 or 15 years. Those days are long gone. Why stay 5-7 years for 8%-10% raises when you can get 15% for changing employers? A typical scenario (especially in federal I.T. contracting) is for a corporation win a contract and have to fill the positions. Since there are not enough applicants, that corporation has to “raid” another company.</p>
<p>Schools are not being checked. If anything, employers inquire about my Oracle or PMP certs than schools.</p>
<p>I also got a BA in Economics and have thought about going back to school for a 2nd degree in engineering. I have about 35k in debt from undergrad though, so I need to pay that off first :-/</p>
<p>Please keep me posted on how things work out for you.</p>
<p>The major problem with G.P.'s examples is that student performance at an institution is determined by relative competitiveness. Thus a 1400/1600 (SAT, M+V) student at UCSB might graduate with a 3.6+ GPA in electrical engineering. The same student at UCB might have a 3.0 GPA. So, what is the GPA premium on the offer?</p>
<p>From what I’ve seen is that it’s a wash and the far more important variables for compensation are interview ability, knowledge/skill specialization, the ability to play politics, & luck.</p>
<p>Agreed. School is not the only consideration by any means. The point is that the same person, going into the same field with the same degree will be better off more times than not in terms of long-term wealth graduating from a better school.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Almost no one offers a GPA premium except for consulting firms. The issue is all about which employers go to Berkeley and which go to UCSB. If a firm goes to Berkeley and UCSB, you can bet that they’re targeting different GPA ranges in those two schools. </p>
<p>I went to many different schools when I interviewed and offered the same salary. At Berkeley (for example) my salary range was middle-of-the-road, so I mostly recruited 3.0-3.3 GPA students. At Iowa State (for example) I was one of the highest paying recruiters and typically recruited from the 3.7+ GPA students. Also, because of this system I had fewer spots available for ISU students than Berkeley students, Berkeley students were given the higher profile positions, and Berkeley students could “bump” ISU students from a location choice (though the students did not know this). Also, we have a secret system called a fast track, which basically is grooming for mid and upper management. That system is 90+% dominated by our “tier 1” schools (your usual top 10 engineering schools). And this is a major Fortune 100 company. </p>
<p>If you went to UCSB instead of UCB, you didn’t even have a chance to interview - we didn’t go to your campus.</p>
<p>G.P., thanks for your excellent post. Probably the most enlightening post I’ve seen on this forum for at least a year.</p>
<p>
Wrong phraseology. I meant what method did you use to reconcile GPA differences (ie: trying to hire people with the same ability, yet with two different GPAs). You seemed to know what I was asking anyways.</p>
<p>
Absolutely.</p>
<p>
Some companies have hard GPA cutoffs. Are they less “hard” than advertised?</p>
<p>
Makes sense.</p>
<p>
Also makes sense, but what happens when you go to another California school (ie: Cal Poly, where I went to school). There is a significant intellect difference between student populations, but the salary difference is just not there.</p>
<p>
The amount of spots point makes perfect sense. If you are already equalizing for intellect (essentially hiring the same quality student) why the other items? I assume there is some mental calculation that you, as the interviewer, have to do regarding the quality of the hire and your confidence in them. Seems like it would be a fairly weak policy to merely defer to the better school.</p>
<p>
I don’t really understand how someone can be put on a fast track from an interview? Wouldn’t you need at least 2-4 years of work experience? It seems like an idiotic policy to put some on a fast track immediately after hiring.</p>
<p>If the selection process did happen after the hire then that’s just the natural order of things (with a slight bump due to initial job placement, which seems to benefit better schools).</p>
<p>We didn’t reconcile GPA differences. We would go, offer to the students that were the best fit (academically and that we thought were interested in our company), then we would see the acceptance rate. We targeted 50+% of the offers we gave to be accepted. But if that number dropped low (say in the 30% range), then we start to bias lower in the GPA range (rather than looking for the top students, we’d look for 3.2-3.5 GPA students with extensive internship experience). That would usually get the acceptance rate up. Why did we care about acceptance rate? It’s expensive to fly someone across the country first class, rent a limo to pick them up, put them up in a Four Seasons, take them to dinner at an expensive restaurant, then dedicate two days of an engineer’s time to escort them around between interviews and on tours. </p>
<p>What about quality control? Each year we evaluated the ranking of current employees from each school (both at the 1 year mark and 5 year mark), the fraction of students still with the company after 5 and 10 years, the USNews Rankings (as bad as they are, they are what most people use), and a trade publication that tracks the performance of graduates from each school in our industry. When a school underperformed, it got less offers next year (or was dropped), when it did well, it was favored (more recruiting money went to that school for scholarships and senior design projects, more interview spots were opened, more people went to the career fair, etc.). We almost randomly picked up new schools to “try them out” if they ranked well. </p>
<p>So it was a big feedback loop. If Berkley’s average salaries went up, our acceptance rate went down. The next year we dropped our standards. The next year the performance of students was evaluated to see if we hired poorly because of the lowered standards. If so, we cut back the number of offers at that school. The next year, with fewer offers to give, our standards went up. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The salary difference between what schools? Berkeley and Cal Poly SLO? I can’t speak to that as I didn’t recruit Cal Poly SLO.</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind when comparing salaries is that at Berkeley, you have a very high percentage of students (relative to other schools) going to graduate or professional school. That eliminates your top performers.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, that’s it. Each college has a recruiting team and a recruiting lead. The better schools will get more senior managers leading their effort (because we target them), and those more senior managers have more pull in the company. So, if “Team Georgia Tech”'s leader is a VP, and “Team Virginia Tech”'s leader is a first line supervisor, the GT team gets first pick in placing engineers.</p>
<p>Remember: in most companies the hiring is not done by dedicated HR, it’s done by engineers and managers. Those engineers and managers spend 90% of their time doing something other than recruiting. I lead US recruiting and still managed a plant.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You can tell immediately who has potential. Those people go on the fast track and are placed in the plants close to HQ, the larger facilities, in high visibility positions, etc. Some people don’t make it in the high visibility positions and are dropped from the list, and there are some that are excellent performers and make it on to the list later (though that’s more difficult to do in a low visibility position).</p>